Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Just like to add - get a pair of 100Mbit LAN cards with twisted pair cross-over - it will take ages to transfer TIF files by any other means. I would move the PS to the new machine as this is generally slow to process large TIF files even on my 900Mhz Athlon. Pack the new machine with ram (1GB) - it's cheap at the moment. Most video cards are pretty good today even the cheap ones. If you fancy saving some money and space use only 1 monitor (your current one) by using a switch to swap between machines. Some switch boxes allow you to connect 2 computers to one monitor,a keyboard and a mouse - although they need high quality switching as the mouse and keyboard should not normally be (dis)/connected whilst the machine is running. I am currently using 2 machines with one monitor one via BNC and via the d-sub cable (2 keyboards and mice). One machine is stitching panoramas whilst I do other tasks on the other machine. Steve - Original Message - From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 12:43 PM Subject: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!! > "Anthony Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've considered it--but how would I get the pictures back and forth > between the > > two machines? I'd need to buy a router, at the very least, so add a few > hundred > > more dollars. > > Huh? Where did you get that idea? Worst case scenario you could use direct > cable > networking with a laplink cable for about $20. If you have LAN cards with > twisted > pair connectors you can use a crossover ethernet cable. If you have coax > cards then > it's two T-pieces, two terminators and a piece of cable. If you have USB > you could > do it with a USB cable. All the networking is built into Windows > *depending* on which > version you're running. If it's NT 4.0 then you're out of luck with USB. > If you > have NT 4.0 and want to use a laplink cable, check out KB article Q142065. > I don't think you can use a parallel port laplink cable with NT 4.0, but it > may be > possible to buy a parallel port to ethernet adapter with NT drivers. > > > And the machine would need at least 512 MB of memory in order to > > hold the scans, so add a few hundred more. And I'd need a second copy of > > Photoshop, and a second top-quality monitor and video board, so add > another > > $2000 or so. We are already into thousands of dollars just for this one > chance, > > and I'm not even counting the scanner! > > RAM is about US$40 for 256MB in Australia so I can't imagine it would be so > expensive in France. Actually you don't need all that RAM to do scans, only > to edit them. Why do you need Photoshop and a top quality monitor? > AFAIK Vuescan supports the LS4000 so you could dump raw scans from it > and port them across to the NT box. If you must use Nikonscan, then you > have a problem but you might be able to get a switch for your existing > monitor. > As I mentioned earlier, if you put a CDRW drive in the new computer you > could write the raw scans to CDR and use sneakernet to put them on the NT > machine to crop them and edit them. A CDRW drive with burnproof can be > had here for about US$110. > > Or you could buy a Polaroid SS4000 which uses SCSI and you wouldn't have > a problem - just no ICE... > > Rob > > >
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Rob writes: > Where did you get that idea? Worst case scenario > you could use direct cable networking with a laplink > cable for about $20. I currently have a continuous external Internet connection on the NIC. > RAM is about US$40 for 256MB in Australia so I > can't imagine it would be so expensive in France. The machine I have requires special 128 MB DIMM modules or something. Last time I bought a pair, it cost me around $500, although that was a couple of years ago. I'd have to buy two pairs to bring the machine up to the maximum configurable RAM of 512 MB. > Why do you need Photoshop and a top quality monitor? Because I have to adjust the scans after making them, and I need Photoshop to do that, plus a good monitor to be able to see the results. > AFAIK Vuescan supports the LS4000 so you could > dump raw scans from it and port them across to > the NT box. After I've invested in networking hardware. > Or you could buy a Polaroid SS4000 which uses > SCSI and you wouldn't have a problem - just no ICE... I understand the dynamic range is quite limited, though.
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
You're overlooking the most important part. Hardware upgrade isn't the expensive part--software upgrade is what costs all the time and money, and sometimes it isn't even possible at all. Just Quark XPress alone costs $2300, and it requires a dongle. I would have to migrate about 100 applications, plus various aspects of my working environment (such as 1800 Type 1 fonts, for example). - Original Message - From: "Steve Greenbank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 14:32 Subject: Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!! > Just like to add - get a pair of 100Mbit LAN cards with twisted pair > cross-over - it will take ages to transfer TIF files by any other means. I > would move the PS to the new machine as this is generally slow to process > large TIF files even on my 900Mhz Athlon. > > Pack the new machine with ram (1GB) - it's cheap at the moment. Most video > cards are pretty good today even the cheap ones. > If you fancy saving some money and space use only 1 monitor (your current > one) by using a switch to swap between machines. Some switch boxes allow you > to connect 2 computers to one monitor,a keyboard and a mouse - although they > need high quality switching as the mouse and keyboard should not normally be > (dis)/connected whilst the machine is running. > > I am currently using 2 machines with one monitor one via BNC and via the > d-sub cable (2 keyboards and mice). One machine is stitching panoramas > whilst I do other tasks on the other machine. > > Steve > > - Original Message - > From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 12:43 PM > Subject: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film > scanner, period!!! > > > > "Anthony Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I've considered it--but how would I get the pictures back and forth > > between the > > > two machines? I'd need to buy a router, at the very least, so add a few > > hundred > > > more dollars. > > > > Huh? Where did you get that idea? Worst case scenario you could use > direct > > cable > > networking with a laplink cable for about $20. If you have LAN cards with > > twisted > > pair connectors you can use a crossover ethernet cable. If you have coax > > cards then > > it's two T-pieces, two terminators and a piece of cable. If you have USB > > you could > > do it with a USB cable. All the networking is built into Windows > > *depending* on which > > version you're running. If it's NT 4.0 then you're out of luck with USB. > > If you > > have NT 4.0 and want to use a laplink cable, check out KB article Q142065. > > I don't think you can use a parallel port laplink cable with NT 4.0, but > it > > may be > > possible to buy a parallel port to ethernet adapter with NT drivers. > > > > > And the machine would need at least 512 MB of memory in order to > > > hold the scans, so add a few hundred more. And I'd need a second copy > of > > > Photoshop, and a second top-quality monitor and video board, so add > > another > > > $2000 or so. We are already into thousands of dollars just for this one > > chance, > > > and I'm not even counting the scanner! > > > > RAM is about US$40 for 256MB in Australia so I can't imagine it would be > so > > expensive in France. Actually you don't need all that RAM to do scans, > only > > to edit them. Why do you need Photoshop and a top quality monitor? > > AFAIK Vuescan supports the LS4000 so you could dump raw scans from it > > and port them across to the NT box. If you must use Nikonscan, then you > > have a problem but you might be able to get a switch for your existing > > monitor. > > As I mentioned earlier, if you put a CDRW drive in the new computer you > > could write the raw scans to CDR and use sneakernet to put them on the NT > > machine to crop them and edit them. A CDRW drive with burnproof can be > > had here for about US$110. > > > > Or you could buy a Polaroid SS4000 which uses SCSI and you wouldn't have > > a problem - just no ICE... > > > > Rob > > > > > > >
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
I'm suggesting you move a few slower applications to the new machine and leave the others where they are and use 100Mbit network between the 2 machines to transfer the data. The hardware to perform this is <$50. eg. PS as 4000dpi scans take a long time to process - I hate to think how much time it takes on a 200Mhz Pentium Pro. (It irritates me on Athlon 900 with 512MB PC133) Since it soumds like you have a decent monitor I expect it has both BNC and D-Sub connector so you could skip the monitor or better still get a 15 inch monitor and a dual head Matrox graphics card. You can put all your palletes on the 15inch monitor and use your decent one solely for the image. I am sure you can pick up 1GHz+ machine with 1GB of memory for less than $1000 (I'm in the UK so I'm guessing a bit) that will save you much more time sitting waiting for PS than it takes to install the program. Whilst you will be a victim of the manufacturers upgrade policy you wait far less time everytime you do any PS operation - except perhaps open/write where 7200rpm disks help as do IDE Raid solutions (striped SCSI raid better but costs a fortune). Steve - Original Message - From: "Anthony Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 4:04 PM Subject: Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!! > You're overlooking the most important part. Hardware upgrade isn't the > expensive part--software upgrade is what costs all the time and money, and > sometimes it isn't even possible at all. Just Quark XPress alone costs $2300, > and it requires a dongle. I would have to migrate about 100 applications, plus > various aspects of my working environment (such as 1800 Type 1 fonts, for > example). > > - Original Message - > From: "Steve Greenbank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 14:32 > Subject: Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film > scanner, period!!! > > > > Just like to add - get a pair of 100Mbit LAN cards with twisted pair > > cross-over - it will take ages to transfer TIF files by any other means. I > > would move the PS to the new machine as this is generally slow to process > > large TIF files even on my 900Mhz Athlon. > > > > Pack the new machine with ram (1GB) - it's cheap at the moment. Most video > > cards are pretty good today even the cheap ones. > > If you fancy saving some money and space use only 1 monitor (your current > > one) by using a switch to swap between machines. Some switch boxes allow you > > to connect 2 computers to one monitor,a keyboard and a mouse - although they > > need high quality switching as the mouse and keyboard should not normally be > > (dis)/connected whilst the machine is running. > > > > I am currently using 2 machines with one monitor one via BNC and via the > > d-sub cable (2 keyboards and mice). One machine is stitching panoramas > > whilst I do other tasks on the other machine. > > > > Steve > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 12:43 PM > > Subject: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film > > scanner, period!!! > > > > > > > "Anthony Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I've considered it--but how would I get the pictures back and forth > > > between the > > > > two machines? I'd need to buy a router, at the very least, so add a few > > > hundred > > > > more dollars. > > > > > > Huh? Where did you get that idea? Worst case scenario you could use > > direct > > > cable > > > networking with a laplink cable for about $20. If you have LAN cards with > > > twisted > > > pair connectors you can use a crossover ethernet cable. If you have coax > > > cards then > > > it's two T-pieces, two terminators and a piece of cable. If you have USB > > > you could > > > do it with a USB cable. All the networking is built into Windows > > > *depending* on which > > > version you're running. If it's NT 4.0 then you're out of luck with USB. > > > If you > > > have NT 4.0 and want to use a laplink cable, check out KB article Q142065. > > > I don't think you can use a parallel port laplink cable with NT 4.0, but > > it > > > may be > > > possible to buy a parallel port to ethernet adapter wi
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
> I'm suggesting you move a few slower applications > to the new machine and leave the others where they > are ... I'd need a new and expensive monitor for both machines, then. And many applications are interdependent. There are many other issues as well. > PS as 4000dpi scans take a long time to process > - I hate to think how much time it takes on a > 200Mhz Pentium Pro. Not long at all. The main source of delay is the disk drives, not the processor or RAM. Without a RAID array, no disk drive is fast enough to meet the challenge, so you spend most of your time waiting on disk. > Since it soumds like you have a decent monitor > I expect it has both BNC and D-Sub connector ... Yes, a Sony. > ... so you could skip the monitor or better still > get a 15 inch monitor and a dual head Matrox > graphics card. Nothing less than 20" and 1600x1200 is acceptable. A second monitor on one machine would eat too much memory and processor. I am limited to PCI Matrox cards, as I do not have AGP support. > I am sure you can pick up 1GHz+ machine with > 1GB of memory for less than $1000 ... Maybe, but I cannot afford to idle my production system for six months while I reinstall, update, and debug 100 different applications. You're overlooking the greatest cost here: The time and money required to upgrade and reinstall software and return to the same software configuration (or the equivalent) used on the original machine.
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
I guess I'm a little confused on the source of the dilemma. You are frustrated at the rapid obsolescence in computer equipment and software, which is certainly your right. Things *do* change quickly. And as they change, things previously not possible become so only because they make something previously possible no longer. You seem like a very knowledgeable computer user, not a novice. I do think your expectations of effort in order to accommodate new technologies is unrealistic. The Pentium Pro processor you use was introduced in 1995, and was the first in the P6 architecture (and a damn fine chip for running NT, but Intel has introduced two follow ons to it's core in the interim). When it was introduced, Firewire didn't exist. Nor did NT 4 or Win2K. Or Digital ICE. Memory was about $30/ megabyte. Heck, the CPU itself was selling for close to $2000 when it first came out. I don't like re-configuring my personal computer, and I install software very rarely, but I accept it as the necessity of getting new functionality. I just built a new machine and I expect that any new programs and software introduced in the next few years will run on it. But I also accept that something new won't. When that happens, I'll decide how to address the *need*. But if it was only the need for an ability to scan with the scanner that You seem to really want, then many low cost options have been suggested and rather than recognizing that a new computer is what is needed (in this instance) your energy seems devoted to vitriol toward Nikon and discounting in principle any effort to accommodate your outdated hardware and it's constraints. Please don't continue lambasting Nikon on the list for assessing the current market for their wares and ruling out a market segment that is only shrinking. The LS 4000 produces huge files, and Nikon apparently decided that anyone using it isn't using commercially outdated hardware. The decision for Firewire makes sense, and it isn't their fault Firewire isn't supported in NT. Here's another low cost method of scanning: Buy a barebones PC with a low end processor. Figure maybe $250. Load WinME or W2K on it. Buy two Ethernet cards and a single crossover cable. Use the free software VNC from AT&T Labs to control the scanner PC from the PPro machine. No new software installed or moved or license issues, and you're not using a new monitor. Total outlay, save for OS, is about $350. Pat - Original Message - From: "Anthony Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 2:01 PM Subject: Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!! > > I'm suggesting you move a few slower applications > > to the new machine and leave the others where they > > are ... > > I'd need a new and expensive monitor for both machines, then. And many > applications are interdependent. There are many other issues as well. > > > PS as 4000dpi scans take a long time to process > > - I hate to think how much time it takes on a > > 200Mhz Pentium Pro. > > Not long at all. The main source of delay is the disk drives, not the processor > or RAM. Without a RAID array, no disk drive is fast enough to meet the > challenge, so you spend most of your time waiting on disk. > > > Since it soumds like you have a decent monitor > > I expect it has both BNC and D-Sub connector ... > > Yes, a Sony. > > > ... so you could skip the monitor or better still > > get a 15 inch monitor and a dual head Matrox > > graphics card. > > Nothing less than 20" and 1600x1200 is acceptable. A second monitor on one > machine would eat too much memory and processor. > > I am limited to PCI Matrox cards, as I do not have AGP support. > > > I am sure you can pick up 1GHz+ machine with > > 1GB of memory for less than $1000 ... > > Maybe, but I cannot afford to idle my production system for six months while I > reinstall, update, and debug 100 different applications. > > You're overlooking the greatest cost here: The time and money required to > upgrade and reinstall software and return to the same software configuration (or > the equivalent) used on the original machine. _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
"Anthony Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I currently have a continuous external Internet connection on the NIC. Then you have a security issue, but you don't necessarily need a router. A four port switch would do it, and that won't cost you thousands - for that matter there are combined switch/routers which are very cheap as well. > The machine I have requires special 128 MB DIMM modules or something. Last time > I bought a pair, it cost me around $500, although that was a couple of years > ago. I'd have to buy two pairs to bring the machine up to the maximum > configurable RAM of 512 MB. What does that have to do with the new PC I was talking about? If you can't upgrade the RAM in your current machine to handle 4000ppi scans why are we having this discussion? > > Why do you need Photoshop and a top quality monitor? > Because I have to adjust the scans after making them, and I need Photoshop to do > that, plus a good monitor to be able to see the results. No, you don't. > > AFAIK Vuescan supports the LS4000 so you could > > dump raw scans from it and port them across to > > the NT box. > After I've invested in networking hardware. See above. You also ignored my suggestion of CDR which eliminates the need for networking. > > Or you could buy a Polaroid SS4000 which uses > > SCSI and you wouldn't have a problem - just no ICE... > I understand the dynamic range is quite limited, though. I'd be happy to hear of a real comparison if anyone has done it, but you eliminated the Polaroid scanners by making ICE a requirement. If you aren't interested in hearing solutions then there's no point in discussing it. Rob
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Rob writes: > What does that have to do with the new PC I > was talking about? I don't remember. > See above. You also ignored my suggestion of > CDR which eliminates the need for networking. CD-R is too slow. CD-RW is ten times worse. > I'd be happy to hear of a real comparison if > anyone has done it, but you eliminated the > Polaroid scanners by making ICE a requirement. I have always heard that Polaroid scanners are not as good as Nikon scanners. I would not want to take a step backwards.
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Pat writes: > I guess I'm a little confused on the source > of the dilemma. You are frustrated at the rapid > obsolescence in computer equipment and software, > which is certainly your right. Yes. What is confusing about that? If you had to rebuild your home in order to replace a washing machine, wouldn't you find that a bit extreme, too? > Things *do* change quickly. And as they > change, things previously not possible become > so only because they make something previously > possible no longer. Not true in this case. Nikon simply decided to drop SCSI and Windows NT support for their newer scanners. This was a marketing decision, not a technical decision, and no technical advantage accrues from it. > You seem like a very knowledgeable computer user, > not a novice. I do think your expectations of effort > in order to accommodate new technologies is > unrealistic. It is precisely because I have several decades of experience in this domain that I know the _real_ cost of upgrading anything. Virtually all upgrades today create a snowball effect that very often requires completely replacing a machine and most of the software running upon it, particularly the operating system. This problem has become so serious nowadays that it provides strong incentive for never upgrading anything at all (and that is my current policy). > The Pentium Pro processor you use was introduced > in 1995, and was the first in the P6 architecture > (and a damn fine chip for running NT, but Intel > has introduced two follow ons to it's core in > the interim). Yes. Unfortunately, Intel went for cheap speed after the Pentium Pro, and never pursued the PPro design lines further. > When it was introduced, Firewire didn't exist. Most of what exists today didn't exist a month ago. That doesn't mean that everything more than a month old should become unsupported. > Heck, the CPU itself was selling for close > to $2000 when it first came out. They still are. The latest Intel CPUs enjoy huge margins. It always puzzles me that people complain so loudly about paying Microsoft $30 for a copy of Windows on a new machine when often over half the total price of the system goes to Intel to pay for a processor with a 70% gross profit margin or better. > I don't like re-configuring my personal computer, > and I install software very rarely, but I accept > it as the necessity of getting new functionality. When you run a production system, you may change your mind. > But if it was only the need for an ability to scan > with the scanner that You seem to really want, then > many low cost options have been suggested ... All of these options add thousands of dollars to the bill, so they are hardly low-cost. However, the real cost is not in dollars and hardware, it's in downtime. I cannot afford to lose the use of 90% of my applications for two months while I try to configure a completely new OS and/or new hardware. If I could buy new hardware and just copy all the stuff on the old machine to the new machine, boot, and run, then no problem. But 99% of the cost of the upgrade is in the downtime, not the cost of the hardware, and that cost is too high to make an upgrade cost-effective if it cannot be easily plugged into an existing configuration. > ... your energy seems devoted to vitriol toward > Nikon ... Nikon is making poor decisions on this product. That's their fault, not mine. > ... and discounting in principle any effort to > accommodate your outdated hardware and it's > constraints. Strange ... my car, my washing machine, my TV, my microwave ... all of these are older than my "outdated" PC, and yet I have no trouble finding accommodations for them. I don't need to use completely new fuel for my car every two years. My washing machine still accepts the same fittings and electrical power that its predecessors did. My TV still can receive programs based on broadcast standards established 40 years ago. This accommodation is possible even though all of these devices are relatively new. There is no point in trying to persuade me with technical arguments, because I know better than to consider this a technical problem. > Please don't continue lambasting Nikon on the list > for assessing the current market for their wares > and ruling out a market segment that is only shrinking. I'm not convinced that they did that. If they had, they would know that professional computer users upgrade _far_ less often than casual users, because established production systems and workflows cannot be rebuilt every six months if a company wants to stay in business. Clearly, they are aiming the product at amateurs, which is probably a mistake, given its price, which puts it at the extreme high end of the "prosumer" range. > The LS 4000 produces huge files ... It produces files about twice the size of those produced by an LS-2000. Any system that can handle files from an LS-2000 can handle them from an LS-4000. > ... and Nikon apparently
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Although I very much empathize and support your concerns about planned obsolescence in computer equipment, no matter how well it fuels capitalism and environmental havoc, I have to say that your demands aren't completely reasonable, and you seem to really be fighting with yourself in your refusal to make certain changes which ultimately would save money. If I bought a car which required a fuel that was no longer manufactured in my country, and the only way I could drive the beast was to import the fuel from someplace else at tremendous cost, hassle and maybe even risk, I'd cash in my chips on that vehicle and accept the inevitable, that the car had been a bad purchase within the realm of the marketplace. Many Beta VCR supporters have had to face this reality, perhaps with some frustration, since Beta was likely better in quality. If my reel to reel player failed and the parts were no longer made, and my only choice was buying a Revox at thousands of dollars, I might just decide it was time to buy a CD player, or whatever. Regarding your implication that the Nikon 4000 was considerably superior to the Polaroid SS 4000; that doesn't seem to hold up in the reviews I've read, but Polaroid's current financial state might be cause for concern if you worry about obsolescence. If you very simply are saying that "I absolutely refuse to upgrade" then, indeed you are probably stuck with limitations as to your purchase options, but then, if that's the case, the weak link might not be the LS2000... Art Anthony Atkielski wrote: > > Rob writes: > > > Where did you get that idea? Worst case scenario > > you could use direct cable networking with a laplink > > cable for about $20. > > I currently have a continuous external Internet connection on the NIC. > > > RAM is about US$40 for 256MB in Australia so I > > can't imagine it would be so expensive in France. > > The machine I have requires special 128 MB DIMM modules or something. Last time > I bought a pair, it cost me around $500, although that was a couple of years > ago. I'd have to buy two pairs to bring the machine up to the maximum > configurable RAM of 512 MB. > > > Why do you need Photoshop and a top quality monitor? > > Because I have to adjust the scans after making them, and I need Photoshop to do > that, plus a good monitor to be able to see the results. > > > AFAIK Vuescan supports the LS4000 so you could > > dump raw scans from it and port them across to > > the NT box. > > After I've invested in networking hardware. > > > Or you could buy a Polaroid SS4000 which uses > > SCSI and you wouldn't have a problem - just no ICE... > > I understand the dynamic range is quite limited, though.
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
> > Since it soumds like you have a decent monitor > > I expect it has both BNC and D-Sub connector ... > > Yes, a Sony. > > > ... so you could skip the monitor or better still > > get a 15 inch monitor and a dual head Matrox > > graphics card. > > Nothing less than 20" and 1600x1200 is acceptable. A second monitor on one > machine would eat too much memory and processor. My understanding (I haven't tried it) is that a dual head Matrox card allows you to put Photoshop pallettes on one monitor (15") and use the whole of the other 20" display just to display the current image. The mouse cursor crosses seamlessly between the two monitors. Also if you connect BNC from one computer to the 20" monitor and d-sub from the other you can use it with both computers. Steve
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
- Original Message - From: "Anthony Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Pat writes: > > > I guess I'm a little confused on the source > > of the dilemma. You are frustrated at the rapid > > obsolescence in computer equipment and software, > > which is certainly your right. > > Yes. What is confusing about that? If you had to rebuild your home in order to > replace a washing machine, wouldn't you find that a bit extreme, too? > Well, the fact is, washing machines are not exactly a new technology, while computers are still in the growth phase of their product life cycle. So rebuilding my house isn't necessary. But frankly, compared to when my washer was built, quite a few advances *have* been made in washing machine technology, and if I want them, I have to throw the old one out in order to get the new features. I guess I should be frutrated that Maytag didn't build the washer such that it could accept new features. > > Things *do* change quickly. And as they > > change, things previously not possible become > > so only because they make something previously > > possible no longer. > > Not true in this case. Nikon simply decided to drop SCSI and Windows NT support > for their newer scanners. This was a marketing decision, not a technical > decision, and no technical advantage accrues from it. > It isn't obvious to me that the dropping of SCSI was purely a marketing decision. It is a high end product aimed at professional photographers and small service bureaus. Most Macintoshes have had the Firewire for several years. SCSI is disappearing even in Macs, as I understand it. Regardless, if the bulkl of the potential customers prefer a more convenient interface, why build a product with multiple interfaces? Firewire is hot pluggable and faster. Although I use SCSI on my computer, I can't think of an advantage it has in this application, offhand. But by only providing it with a single interface, they reduce the cost of the product, as well as the complexity of the software to run it, and in turn reduce support costs. > > You seem like a very knowledgeable computer user, > > not a novice. I do think your expectations of effort > > in order to accommodate new technologies is > > unrealistic. > > It is precisely because I have several decades of experience in this domain that > I know the _real_ cost of upgrading anything. Virtually all upgrades today > create a snowball effect that very often requires completely replacing a machine > and most of the software running upon it, particularly the operating system. > This problem has become so serious nowadays that it provides strong incentive > for never upgrading anything at all (and that is my current policy). > > > The Pentium Pro processor you use was introduced > > in 1995, and was the first in the P6 architecture > > (and a damn fine chip for running NT, but Intel > > has introduced two follow ons to it's core in > > the interim). > > Yes. Unfortunately, Intel went for cheap speed after the Pentium Pro, and never > pursued the PPro design lines further. > > > When it was introduced, Firewire didn't exist. > > Most of what exists today didn't exist a month ago. That doesn't mean that > everything more than a month old should become unsupported. > > > Heck, the CPU itself was selling for close > > to $2000 when it first came out. > > They still are. The latest Intel CPUs enjoy huge margins. It always puzzles me > that people complain so loudly about paying Microsoft $30 for a copy of Windows > on a new machine when often over half the total price of the system goes to > Intel to pay for a processor with a 70% gross profit margin or better. > > > I don't like re-configuring my personal computer, > > and I install software very rarely, but I accept > > it as the necessity of getting new functionality. > > When you run a production system, you may change your mind. I run several hundred production systems. I manage PC platforms for a large asset management company. If the computers I was responsible for didn't function with all user specific settings and applications after a PC upgrade, I wouldn't have a job. Some of these are PCs that run for months without reboot, operated by PC hostile users. Believe me when I tell you that I too have experience in upgrading PCs. Monday, my project at work to upgrade ALL computers in my company to Win2k and Office 2k begins. It ends 5 weeks later (2 week pilot, three week for everyone outside IS), once all desktop, laptops and servers have had new environments installed, and all applications reinstalled, along with user-state. It is not insurmountable, and even someone as lazy as I can accomplish it in short order. Products like OnTrack System Suite have application moving features built-in. > > > But if it was only the need for an ability to scan > > with the scanner that You seem to really want, then > > many low cost options have been suggested ... > > All of these options add thousands of doll
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Art, a very good response here. And where you mention the Polaroid and it's possible risk due to corporate financial concerns, you can also purchase the Microtel version of the scanner, which other than firmware and possibly the QC grade of the CCD is the same hardware as the Polaroid (but the Polaroid costs less and comes with Silverfast). Sorry to play Devil's advocate here, David . I think I haven't seen any direct comparisons between the Nikon and Polaroid scanners where they were both judged excellent with advantages to each. If the Polaroid had been it's current price when I bought my Minolta Elite a few months ago, Id be happily scanning with it right now, instead of 2800 dpi with ICE. Pat - Original Message - From: "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 5:01 PM Subject: Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!! > Although I very much empathize and support your concerns about planned > obsolescence in computer equipment, no matter how well it fuels > capitalism and environmental havoc, I have to say that your demands > aren't completely reasonable, and you seem to really be fighting with > yourself in your refusal to make certain changes which ultimately would > save money. > > If I bought a car which required a fuel that was no longer manufactured > in my country, and the only way I could drive the beast was to import > the fuel from someplace else at tremendous cost, hassle and maybe even > risk, I'd cash in my chips on that vehicle and accept the inevitable, > that the car had been a bad purchase within the realm of the > marketplace. Many Beta VCR supporters have had to face this reality, > perhaps with some frustration, since Beta was likely better in quality. > > If my reel to reel player failed and the parts were no longer made, and > my only choice was buying a Revox at thousands of dollars, I might just > decide it was time to buy a CD player, or whatever. > > Regarding your implication that the Nikon 4000 was considerably superior > to the Polaroid SS 4000; that doesn't seem to hold up in the reviews > I've read, but Polaroid's current financial state might be cause for > concern if you worry about obsolescence. > > If you very simply are saying that "I absolutely refuse to upgrade" > then, indeed you are probably stuck with limitations as to your purchase > options, but then, if that's the case, the weak link might not be the > LS2000... > > Art > > Anthony Atkielski wrote: > > > > Rob writes: > > > > > Where did you get that idea? Worst case scenario > > > you could use direct cable networking with a laplink > > > cable for about $20. > > > > I currently have a continuous external Internet connection on the NIC. > > > > > RAM is about US$40 for 256MB in Australia so I > > > can't imagine it would be so expensive in France. > > > > The machine I have requires special 128 MB DIMM modules or something. Last time > > I bought a pair, it cost me around $500, although that was a couple of years > > ago. I'd have to buy two pairs to bring the machine up to the maximum > > configurable RAM of 512 MB. > > > > > Why do you need Photoshop and a top quality monitor? > > > > Because I have to adjust the scans after making them, and I need Photoshop to do > > that, plus a good monitor to be able to see the results. > > > > > AFAIK Vuescan supports the LS4000 so you could > > > dump raw scans from it and port them across to > > > the NT box. > > > > After I've invested in networking hardware. > > > > > Or you could buy a Polaroid SS4000 which uses > > > SCSI and you wouldn't have a problem - just no ICE... > > > > I understand the dynamic range is quite limited, though. > _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
> Not true in this case. Nikon simply decided to drop SCSI and Windows NT support > for their newer scanners. This was a marketing decision, not a technical > decision, and no technical advantage accrues from it. That's not true. How about plug and play? That's something that SCSI is not. And firewire, unlike SCSI, doesn't require your devices to be powered on at boot time. SCSI devices also require proper termination, which is one of the larger problem and support issues with SCSI devices. Firewire devices do not have the cable length and bandwidth limitations that SCSI devices do. Windows 2000 has been out for more then a year and a half now. Microsoft will officially drop NT support soon. Why would Nikon want to introduce new products that support obsolete operating systems and hardware? > Yes. Unfortunately, Intel went for cheap speed after the Pentium Pro, and never > pursued the PPro design lines further. Speed and cheap sound good to me. Why pay more when you can get it for less. > They still are. The latest Intel CPUs enjoy huge margins. It always puzzles me > that people complain so loudly about paying Microsoft $30 for a copy of Windows > on a new machine when often over half the total price of the system goes to > Intel to pay for a processor with a 70% gross profit margin or better. Back in the Pentium Pro days, Intel's profit margin was around 45%, not 70%. It's significantly less these days. CPU's are very complex items to design and manufacture, and fabrication plants to manufacture the CPU's cost billions of dollars, and must be re-tooled every twelve to 18 months. I think a couple of hundred for a fast Intel or AMD CPU is a bargain. The single most expensive item in a system is the monitor, not the CPU. Even a fast CPU is rarely more than 20-25% of the system price, not more than half as you allege. > However, the real cost is not in dollars and hardware, it's in downtime. I > cannot afford to lose the use of 90% of my applications for two months while I > try to configure a completely new OS and/or new hardware. Does it really take you two months to reconfigure a system? > Strange ... my car, my washing machine, my TV, my microwave ... all of these are > older than my "outdated" PC, and yet I have no trouble finding accommodations > for them. I don't need to use completely new fuel for my car every two years. > My washing machine still accepts the same fittings and electrical power that its > predecessors did. My TV still can receive programs based on broadcast standards > established 40 years ago. So? Computer technology is evolving at a much faster pace than your washing machine. Your Pentium Pro NT box is probably still as fast as the day you bought it. And it will probably run all the software and hardware of it's day, and do it well. It will admirably run any filmscanners of that era too. As long as it's doing everything you need it to do, there's probably not a lot of incentive for you to upgrade. > > Please don't continue lambasting Nikon on the list > > for assessing the current market for their wares > > and ruling out a market segment that is only shrinking. > > I'm not convinced that they did that. If they had, they would know that > professional computer users upgrade _far_ less often than casual users, because > established production systems and workflows cannot be rebuilt every six months > if a company wants to stay in business. Clearly, they are aiming the product at > amateurs, which is probably a mistake, given its price, which puts it at the > extreme high end of the "prosumer" range. "Professional" computer users upgrade far more often than "less casual users". I know this for a fact, as I earn a fair chunk of my income from "professional" computer users. In the context of this conversation, photography and scanning, I find this market segment to be the most likely to upgrade to new technology as soon as it's available. If they don't upgrade often, they're not likely to stay in business. The Nikon scanners may very well be "prosumer" devices. Very few photographers can justify $20,000 to $50,000 for a high-end drum scanner, when $3,000 for a Nikon or Polaroid gets you 95% of the quality. > Nikon was too cheap to support more than one environment, and assumed that its > entire user base would simply rebuild new systems from scratch just to > accommodate a slightly better scanner. Or it assumed that all its business > would be new business. In either case, the company is not thinking clearly. Nikon did support NT at one time. Now that NT is no longer being sold, they've moved on to offer products for current operating systems & technology. They don't seem to be having a problem selling their scanners. In fact, the demand for Nikon scanners is far greater than their manufacturing capacity. > I'm just thankful that they aren't this shortsighted when it comes to their film > cameras, or I'd have to buy completely new lenses every two years. >
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
"Anthony Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > CD-R is too slow. CD-RW is ten times worse. So you're painted yourself into a corner again. > I have always heard that Polaroid scanners are not as good as Nikon scanners. I > would not want to take a step backwards. =8^o I've heard quite the opposite. I have an LS30 but if I could have justified the cost, I'd have bought a SS4000. Rob
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Arthur writes: > ... I have to say that your demands aren't > completely reasonable, and you seem to really > be fighting with yourself in your refusal > to make certain changes which ultimately would > save money. Apply those same words to photographic equipment, and see if they still sound sensible. The public has been very well brainwashed with respect to computer equipment. Not only do people not find it odd that they are expected to junk their computers every year or so and buy completely new hardware and software, but they've actually been convinced that this is the way things are _supposed_ to be. And yet, if this same situation existed with anything else--even other high-tech goods--it might incite people to riot. Sorry, but there aren't any changes that would cause me to "save money." The cheapest way to use my computer is by not changing anything at all, and so that's what I do. I long ago learned--after decades of dealing with computers--that the most stable and reliable computer system is a system that is never changed, and especially never "upgraded." This is true for desktop systems, it's true for handheld systems, and it's true for multimillion-dollar mainframe computer systems. If I could just buy a fancier scanner and plug it into my system in place of the existing one (which would be possible if the LS-4000 were SCSI and Windows NT compliant, like its predecessors), I could justify the cost of the scanner. But when I have to upgrade all the hardware, and install a new operating system, and rebuild and reinstall every application, and tweak and reconfigure for months in the hope that I've installed all the patches, parameters, and changes that I had in my old system that made it work so well for my needs, the cost of the scanner pales, and the overall investment far exceeds anything that could possibly be justifiable for me, no matter how much better the new scanner might be. As I've said, it's like having to rewire your house and replace all the appliances and lights just to get a new washing machine. Nobody would ever find that normal. And yet that's exactly what happens almost any time you "upgrade" your computer system. How do you think the PC industry maintains just high growth? People have to buy new systems over and over. And the money the industry is making is coming out of your pocket, if you fall into this upgrade trap. Fortunately, people are gradually showing signs of restlessness with this system, which is why PC sales are way down. Some people have finally discovered (or rediscovered) that there is really no reason to buy a new computer every two years, when the old computer still works just fine. > If I bought a car which required a fuel that was > no longer manufactured in my country, and the only > way I could drive the beast was to import the > fuel from someplace else at tremendous cost, > hassle and maybe even risk, I'd cash in my chips > on that vehicle and accept the inevitable, that > the car had been a bad purchase within the realm > of the marketplace. Yes, but I've carefully avoided making that mistake, to the extent possible. > If you very simply are saying that "I absolutely > refuse to upgrade" then, indeed you are probably > stuck with limitations as to your purchase options, > but then, if that's the case, the weak link might > not be the LS2000... The weak link is in Nikon's marketing strategy. As a result, I do not have a LS-4000, and they do not have my $1700. As I've said, if Nikon marketed camera equipment in the same way, regularly making older equipment obsolete, Canon would have squished the company long ago. Nobody pays Nikon prices and then tolerates obsolescence a few years later. The same is even more true for companies like Leica.
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Pat writes: > Well, the fact is, washing machines are not exactly > a new technology, while computers are still in the > growth phase of their product life cycle. I've been hearing that for twenty years. It was true in 1980, but it's not true now. For some years now, computers have had more than enough horsepower for just about anything anyone might care to have them do. This is one reason why sales are down: some people are starting to realize that their existing computers are just fine, and others are discovering that buying last year's model is far cheaper than buying this year's model, and it is still more than they'll ever need. > So rebuilding my house isn't necessary. But frankly, > compared to when my washer was built, quite a few > advances *have* been made in washing machine > technology, and if I want them, I have to throw > the old one out in order to get the new features. But you don't have to rebuild the house, so that's not a problem for you. > It isn't obvious to me that the dropping of SCSI > was purely a marketing decision. It certainly wasn't a technical decision. The insides of the scanner are pretty much identical, and Firewire and SCSI are just different enough to ruin compatibility, but they are not dramatically different. > It is a high end product aimed at professional > photographers and small service bureaus. These are precisely the users with large investments in hardware and software that they cannot afford to destablize just to install one new component. If you want the professional market, you need to address backward compatibility; only consumers are willing to buy everything new over and over, since they don't have to make money with their computers or depend on them, anyway. Working with computers for all these years, I know this; apparently Nikon does not, although it seems to have no trouble understanding the principle when it comes to building cameras and lenses. Two different divisions, probably. Of course, this principle applies to all sorts of domains, not just computers. Nobody ditches an entire television studio filled with equipment just to accommodate one new camcorder, either. > Regardless, if the bulkl of the potential customers > prefer a more convenient interface, why build a > product with multiple interfaces? I don't think the bulk of customers were polled, but in any case, building for multiple or alternative interfaces is not that difficult. > Firewire is hot pluggable and faster. The speed of the interface has never been a limitation with any scanner I've used. > Although I use SCSI on my computer, I can't think > of an advantage it has in this application, offhand. The advantage is that you already have it. > But by only providing it with a single interface, > they reduce the cost of the product, as well as the > complexity of the software to run it, and in turn > reduce support costs. Support costs are zero for customers who don't buy it. > I run several hundred production systems. I manage > PC platforms for a large asset management company. > If the computers I was responsible for didn't > function with all user specific settings and > applications after a PC upgrade, I wouldn't have > a job. Desktop PCs are nothing like production systems. The mere fact that a desktop PC is used in a business environment doesn't make it a production computer system. A production computer system is the one that runs your payroll and your online inventory system. How often do you rebuild those? > Yes, your washing machine accepts the same fittings as > old ones. So does your computer. I know of scanners that don't accommodate SCSI. > But your washer won't let you add new features > without replacing it. Neither will my scanner. > Your computer does. Computer = house, scanner = washing machine. > And although you knew this when you bought > your computer, you're behaving as if it is > wrong. It is. My old Nikon FG will let me mount the latest AF-S lenses. > But don't bother being indignant about it. It > is tiresome. I used to feel that way, long ago--before I actually had to do productive work with PCs. As long as you can afford to play around with them, letting them remain inoperative for weeks or months while you reconfigure and rebuild and readjust, you don't realize what the problem is. I used to rebuild my PC at work all the time (one of the so-called "production systems" that you say you maintain). It didn't matter if it didn't work for a couple of days, since I used it only for e-mail and one in-house application. And it was easy to rebuild, anyway, since I only had two applications that needed to work on the machine, and no weird hardware. But I've never done that at home; the home machine is a true _production_ system. > Less often than once every 6 years? Yes. The more money you drop on your investment, the longer it has to last without change--a fundamental principle of business. No business can afford to re
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Art said: >If my reel to reel player failed and the parts were no longer made, and >my only choice was buying a Revox at thousands of dollars, I might just >decide it was time to buy a CD player, or whatever. Annoying though that you will have nothing to play your reel to reel archive on? Colin Maddock
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Moreno writes: > That's not true. How about plug and play? That's > something that SCSI is not. Strange--that's exactly how it was for all my SCSI devices (two scanners, a tape drive, a disk drive, and a CD-R burner). > And firewire, unlike SCSI, doesn't require your > devices to be powered on at boot time. Not a big issue for me, as I always turn everything on on those very rare occasions when I boot, anyway. > SCSI devices also require proper termination, > which is one of the larger problem and support > issues with SCSI devices. I've never had a problem with it. > Firewire devices do not have the cable length > and bandwidth limitations that SCSI devices do. SCSI has always provided all the bandwidth I need (scanners are not exactly burning the wire with data), and cable lengths have not been a problem thus far. > Windows 2000 has been out for more then a year > and a half now. When it's out for ten years, I'll think about it. > Microsoft will officially drop NT support soon. No, they won't. Far too much of their corporate customer base is still running NT, and will be for some time to come. > Why would Nikon want to introduce new products > that support obsolete operating systems and > hardware? Because it doesn't know any better. Like I said, the camera and scanner divisions are obviously quite separate, with the latter having learned nothing from the former. > Speed and cheap sound good to me. Not when you examine the microprocessor architecture, and find out that the PPro actually used its clock cycles more efficiently than subsequent processors based on the simpler PII. The PPro was much more of a native 32-bit machine, and had a more efficient pipelining architecture, if I recall correctly. > Back in the Pentium Pro days, Intel's profit > margin was around 45%, not 70%. And they still are. > It's significantly less these days. When it gets down to 5%, I'll worry about them. > CPU's are very complex items to design and > manufacture, and fabrication plants to manufacture > the CPU's cost billions of dollars, and must > be re-tooled every twelve to 18 months. That is a problem for the manufacturer, not me. And nothing requires retooling every 18 months, except a desire on the manufacturer's part to constantly bring newer processors to market, whether they are needed or not (the 45% margins have to be justified somehow, I guess). > I think a couple of hundred for a fast Intel > or AMD CPU is a bargain. As compared to what? Imagine what an incredible deal the OS is, then, since it only costs $30, and required a lot more design work than the microprocessor. > Even a fast CPU is rarely more than 20-25% of > the system price, not more than half as you allege. In my case, it was half the cost of the system. The monitor was about 25% of the cost. > Does it really take you two months to reconfigure > a system? A production system? Yes! Try it sometime. > Computer technology is evolving at a much faster > pace than your washing machine. It is moving laterally more than it is moving forward, and much of the evolution and especially the change is unwarranted. > Your Pentium Pro NT box is probably still as > fast as the day you bought it. Yes, which is why I don't want to upgrade it. > And it will probably run all the software and > hardware of it's day, and do it well. And so it does. > It will admirably run any filmscanners of that > era too. Those that were sold then, yes. But the LS-4000 is virtually identical to those scanners, and yet it will _not_ run on my system. There is no magically advanced technology in the LS-4000; it's only an incremental improvement. There is nothing about it that requires obsoleting the previous interface. > As long as it's doing everything you need it to do, > there's probably not a lot of incentive for you to upgrade. I agree, and I have no plans to upgrade. > "Professional" computer users upgrade far more > often than "less casual users". No, they do not. The largest and most critical production systems also tend to be running the oldest hardware and software. > I know this for a fact, as I earn a fair chunk of > my income from "professional" computer users. I suspect you earn your income from desktop business users, which are not the same thing. Production systems are different. > In the context of this conversation, photography and > scanning, I find this market segment to be the most likely > to upgrade to new technology as soon as it's available. > If they don't upgrade often, they're not likely to > stay in business. Not true. The more critical a production system is to business, the less likely it is to be even touched, much less upgraded. I know of major multinational companies that are still running software from 1968, because it works and because they cannot afford to do anything that might stop it from working even briefly (as in minutes or hours). > Nikon did support NT at one time. Now that NT is > no
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Rob writes: > So you're painted yourself into a corner again. How so? Everything works for me. > =8^o I've heard quite the opposite. I have an > LS30 but if I could have justified the cost, I'd > have bought a SS4000. I was thinking of the LS-2000, not the LS-30. The hardware is identical, of course, but the firmware is crippled in the LS-30, and one of the features that is crippled is the dynamic range.
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
"Anthony Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So you're painted yourself into a corner again. > How so? Everything works for me. You can't upgrade. > I was thinking of the LS-2000, not the LS-30. The hardware is identical, of > course, but the firmware is crippled in the LS-30, and one of the features that > is crippled is the dynamic range. I thought you already had an LS2000? FWIW I haven't found the dynamic range to be a huge problem with Vuescan. At the point where shadow detail is lost in a slide scan I'm seldom interested in seeing it on a print anyway. The LS30's DR is more than adequate for any kind of C41 film. If I was really serious about scanning silver based B&W I'd need a different scanner - my (limited) experience of scanning B&W film is that it's much too dense for the LS30. Rob
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Rob writes: > You can't upgrade. The only upgrade that might interest me is to a LS-4000, and that is not possible. The rest is fine. > I thought you already had an LS2000? I do. But you mentioned an LS-30.
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
> > And firewire, unlike SCSI, doesn't require your > > devices to be powered on at boot time. > > Not a big issue for me, as I always turn everything on on those very rare > occasions when I boot, anyway. Other people have different work habits. I rarely reboot either, but I turn my scanner off when I'm not using it. I don't feel like rebooting when I need to use the scanner. If I want to unplug the scanner and bring it over to another PC, I can do that too, all without shutting down or rebooting the systems. So while the hot-plug ability of firewire offers you no advantage, it certainly does to others. > > SCSI devices also require proper termination, > > which is one of the larger problem and support > > issues with SCSI devices. > > I've never had a problem with it. It's still the biggest problem with SCSI. Eliminating the need for termination is a big plus to millions of computer users. > > Firewire devices do not have the cable length > > and bandwidth limitations that SCSI devices do. > > SCSI has always provided all the bandwidth I need (scanners are not exactly > burning the wire with data), and cable lengths have not been a problem thus far. Cable length is an issue for me. I need a 3 metre cable for my current setup, which I can't do with SCSI. I'm sure I'm not the only one who appreciates that flexibility. > > Microsoft will officially drop NT support soon. > > No, they won't. Yes they will. It has been officially announced by Microsoft. > Far too much of their corporate customer base is still running > NT, and will be for some time to come. NT will disappear as older PC's are replaced. Some of my customers have already moved to W2K, others will when they replace their PC (every two or three years seems to be the average for corporate desktop users). I haven't heard of any new NT installations for some time now. > > Speed and cheap sound good to me. > > Not when you examine the microprocessor architecture, and find out that the PPro > actually used its clock cycles more efficiently than subsequent processors based > on the simpler PII. The PPro was much more of a native 32-bit machine, and had > a more efficient pipelining architecture, if I recall correctly. One of the problems with the Pentium Pro was that it was really expensive to manufacture, and that the design was being pushed to the limit. IIRC, it could not handle any higher clock speeds. And unless a user was running NT, the CPU didn't perform as well as the less expensive Pentiums of equivalent clock speeds. The Pentium Pro cost two to three times an equivalent Pentium CPU, but certainly didn't deliver an equivalent increase in performance. > > CPU's are very complex items to design and > > manufacture, and fabrication plants to manufacture > > the CPU's cost billions of dollars, and must > > be re-tooled every twelve to 18 months. > > That is a problem for the manufacturer, not me. And nothing requires retooling > every 18 months, except a desire on the manufacturer's part to constantly bring > newer processors to market, whether they are needed or not (the 45% margins have > to be justified somehow, I guess). Retooling not only enables a manufacture to introduce newer, faster processors based on new technologies, they can also be built for a lower cost. > > I think a couple of hundred for a fast Intel > > or AMD CPU is a bargain. > > As compared to what? A thousand for what the much slower Pentium Pros used to cost. > Imagine what an incredible deal the OS is, then, since it only costs $30, and > required a lot more design work than the microprocessor. Yes, but an OS can easily be duplicated for pennies, where on the other hand a CPU needs a five billion dollar fabrication plant. Mind you, at $30 for an OS, that's far cheaper than what it would cost me to write my own. I'll gladly pay the $30. > > Even a fast CPU is rarely more than 20-25% of > > the system price, not more than half as you allege. > > In my case, it was half the cost of the system. The monitor was about 25% of > the cost. We were discussing current, not obsolete technology. > > Does it really take you two months to reconfigure > > a system? > > A production system? Yes! Try it sometime. I do it fairly often. About two days for a complex setup is about the average. > > "Professional" computer users upgrade far more > > often than "less casual users". > > No, they do not. The largest and most critical production systems also tend to > be running the oldest hardware and software. Not in the context of this discussion. > > I know this for a fact, as I earn a fair chunk of > > my income from "professional" computer users. > > I suspect you earn your income from desktop business users, which are not the > same thing. Production systems are different. I suspect I know who my customers are much better than you do. > > In the context of this conversation, photography and > > scanning, I find this market segment to be the most likely > > to
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Moreno writes: > I rarely reboot either, but I turn my scanner > off when I'm not using it. As long as it's on when you boot, you can thereafter turn it off or on whenever you want. That's what I do. > If I want to unplug the scanner and bring it over > to another PC, I can do that too, all without > shutting down or rebooting the systems. You can do that with SCSI as well, as long as the device ie present at boot time. > It's still the biggest problem with SCSI. All of my SCSI devices have a switch to terminate the chain if nothing else follows. > Cable length is an issue for me. I need a > 3 metre cable for my current setup, which I > can't do with SCSI. I'm sure I'm not the only > one who appreciates that flexibility. You can have Firewire if you want it; but I don't see why it has to be Fireware or SCSI, but not both. > Yes they will. It has been officially announced > by Microsoft. Where? Someone might want to clue in companies like HP and Compaq, which are still selling brand-new servers with Windows NT. > NT will disappear as older PC's are replaced. Older PCs may not be replaced for many years to come. As I've said, some systems still run MS-DOS. > ... every two or three years seems to be the > average for corporate desktop users. Corporate desktops are not production systems. > I haven't heard of any new NT installations > for some time now. You can buy brand-new systems with Windows NT, if you want them. > One of the problems with the Pentium Pro was > that it was really expensive to manufacture ... They could just trim their 50% margin to cover the difference. > And unless a user was running NT, the CPU didn't > perform as well as the less expensive Pentiums > of equivalent clock speeds. And if a user is running NT, the later microprocessors don't perform as well as the PPro. > The Pentium Pro cost two to three times an > equivalent Pentium CPU, but certainly didn't > deliver an equivalent increase in performance. It was greased lightning on Windows NT. > Retooling not only enables a manufacture to > introduce newer, faster processors based on > new technologies, they can also be built for > a lower cost. Then why do the newer ones always cost three times as much as their predecessors? Could it be those 50% margins again? > A thousand for what the much slower Pentium > Pros used to cost. They don't cost that much now. > Yes, but an OS can easily be duplicated for pennies ... A microprocessor can be fabricated for a few dollars, once you have the factory in place. Likewise, an OS is easily to duplicate, but may cost close to a billion dollars to develop. > We were discussing current, not obsolete technology. Current technology is the same, if you want hardware that will last. > I do it fairly often. All you've mentioned thus far is desktops. Those aren't production systems. Production systems usually take a few weeks to set up. > Not in the context of this discussion. Yes, in the context of this discussion. I run such a system myself. > I suspect I know who my customers are much better > than you do. I recognize the customers you describe. They are not running production systems. > Let's keep focused on the topics at hand. I am. You're apparently not familiar with mission-critical production systems; I am. That's why you are confusing them with desktop machines. > We are discussing systems as they relate to > photography and scanning. When you depend on photography and scanning to pay the rent and buy your meals, the computer you use for the purpose is a mission-critical, production system, and the precautions that apply to operating such systems come into play. > How many photographers or press-press houses do > you know that are running software from 1968 > and are still in business? I haven't polled them. Most of what exists today was not available in 1968, at least in this domain. I do know, however, a great many photographers who are still using cameras and lenses from 1968, or even long before that--unless they use Canon equipment, of course. > I have to disagree again. Most professional computer > users that I deal with are likely to be running > current technology and are the most frequent > upgraders. The ones you deal with are not using systems in a production environment. Nobody who depends on a computer for survival can afford to idle it for weeks at a time, any more than he can afford to run his business without electricity.
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
> The ones you deal with are not using systems in a production environment. > Nobody who depends on a computer for survival can afford to idle it for weeks at > a time, any more than he can afford to run his business without electricity. I'm quite amused at your assertions at who my customers are. Most of them are indeed in a production environment, most of them upgrade often and run current technology. I personally don't know of anyone, other than you, that takes two months to upgrade their system. And I can pretty much guarantee that my "mission critical" or "professional users" don't take weeks, or as in your case two months, to upgrade their systems. If it's a major system upgrade, you can count on a day of downtime. In most cases though, whether it's servers or workstations, a parallel system is first built, tested, then switched over. Downtime is minutes, not months. If you want to learn more about Microsoft's announcement to discontinue NT support, or what Intel's profit margins really are, you can do a search and discover the real facts for yourself, but I have a feeling all you want to do is argue technology. This thread is way off topic now, so I'm bowing out.
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 01:51:13AM +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote: [ ... ] > > > If you want to learn more about Microsoft's announcement > > to discontinue NT support ... > > There has been no such announcement. Actually they have an implicit announcement with the release of every new version of Windows: Their product lifecycle is five+ years. For NT 4.0 they've also released the dates for this to happen: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle.asp -- Karl Heinz Kremer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
> > If you want to learn more about Microsoft's announcement > > to discontinue NT support ... > > There has been no such announcement. Yes there has. From Microsoft. Look it up yourself.
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
> > I'm quite amused at your assertions at who my > > customers are. > > All you've described thus far is desktop users, and desktop systems are not > production systems in any mission-critical sense. The company will not fail > because a desktop computer isn't working. > > > Most of them are indeed in a production environment, > > most of them upgrade often and run current technology. A large part of my business deals with 3D animation, video editing, and pre-press graphics. You may call these desktop systems, I call these production systems. > See above. Please do. > > I personally don't know of anyone, other than you, > > that takes two months to upgrade their system. > > Spend a couple of decades working with real production systems, and you'll know > lots of people like that. In fact, you'll know people who take a year to > upgrade a system. I've certainly had to deal with people like this quite often, > and in fact I've been one myself, when I was working on that side of the fence. In the context of this scanner newsgroup, I doubt you'll find that anyone takes a year to upgrade their systems, especially if their livelihood depends on it. And when their livelihood depends on reliable systems, they probably won't be saddling them more than 100 applications, as you yourself have done. But they will upgrade often to take advantage of newer, faster hardware and software upgrades. > You make the same mistake that many microcomputer companies make, including the > big ones like Microsoft. Their employees have never dealt with true > mission-critical systems, in the mainframe or NASA sense (for example), and are > so completely ignorant of these domains that they refuse to acknowledge their > existence. Your are right in that I haven't dealt with NASA and have very little to do with mainframes. Perhaps you can discuss those systems on a more appropriate newsgroup.
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Talk about 'Mission-critical', I was involved with the preliminary design competition phase of the Space Shuttle. NASA had a criterion for the design of the Shuttle systems. It was, as best I remember it: Fail Operational, Fail Operational, Fail Safe. That meant that after two independent failures (it might have been three) an additional independent failure had to not threaten safe recovery. That is why flights are still cancelled because of bad weather overseas, so that a pre-orbital abort must be able to recover safely at a downrange site. Challenger's destruction taught them that they had not thought of everything, but they tried. Hersch At 08:37 PM 08/26/2001, you wrote: > > I'm quite amused at your assertions at who my > > customers are. > > All you've described thus far is desktop users, and desktop systems are not > production systems in any mission-critical sense. The company will not fail > because a desktop computer isn't working. > > > Most of them are indeed in a production environment, > > most of them upgrade often and run current technology. A large part of my business deals with 3D animation, video editing, and pre-press graphics. You may call these desktop systems, I call these production systems. > See above. Please do. > > I personally don't know of anyone, other than you, > > that takes two months to upgrade their system. > > Spend a couple of decades working with real production systems, and you'll know > lots of people like that. In fact, you'll know people who take a year to > upgrade a system. I've certainly had to deal with people like this quite often, > and in fact I've been one myself, when I was working on that side of the fence. In the context of this scanner newsgroup, I doubt you'll find that anyone takes a year to upgrade their systems, especially if their livelihood depends on it. And when their livelihood depends on reliable systems, they probably won't be saddling them more than 100 applications, as you yourself have done. But they will upgrade often to take advantage of newer, faster hardware and software upgrades. > You make the same mistake that many microcomputer companies make, including the > big ones like Microsoft. Their employees have never dealt with true > mission-critical systems, in the mainframe or NASA sense (for example), and are > so completely ignorant of these domains that they refuse to acknowledge their > existence. Your are right in that I haven't dealt with NASA and have very little to do with mainframes. Perhaps you can discuss those systems on a more appropriate newsgroup.
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Moreno writes: > A large part of my business deals with 3D > animation, video editing, and pre-press graphics. > You may call these desktop systems, I call these > production systems. I call them desktop systems, within the context of this discussion. > In the context of this scanner newsgroup, I doubt > you'll find that anyone takes a year to upgrade > their systems, especially if their livelihood > depends on it. I agree. In cases like that, you just don't upgrade at all. > And when their livelihood depends on reliable > systems, they probably won't be saddling them > more than 100 applications, as you yourself > have done. Sometimes their livelihood may depend on all those applications. It's not a large number. > But they will upgrade often to take advantage > of newer, faster hardware and software upgrades. Not if they need the system up and running continuously as a business necessity. > Your are right in that I haven't dealt with NASA > and have very little to do with mainframes. Perhaps > you can discuss those systems on a more appropriate > newsgroup. They are no less appropriate to discuss than desktop systems. The original point, after all, was that rebuilding a system from scratch just to accommodate a new scanner isn't practical, and Nikon blew it by making its new scanners incompatible with the old ones--a mistake it has never made with its cameras.
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Karl writes: > Their product lifecycle is five+ years. For NT 4.0 > they've also released the dates for > this to happen: > > http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle.asp They've tried that before. They always end up supporting things beyond that date, as large customers insist on it. Notice that MS-DOS is still on the map, and yet it has been around for a lot longer than five years! It's nice to see that they are actually trying to organize things, but they are still pretty random about it, and I predict that there will be many "exceptions" to the rules (as they themselves admit at the bottom of the page). As for something being unsupported, that isn't a problem, as long as it is still working. I've never made a support call for any Microsoft product on my current machine, as far as I can recall (even when it is "supported," you still have to pay money for a support call, anyway).
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Moreno writes: > Yes there has. From Microsoft. Look it up yourself. I can't look up what doesn't exist. Next time, verify that something really exists before you assert that it is there.
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Moreno Polloni wrote: > > > Not true in this case. Nikon simply decided to drop SCSI and Windows NT > support > > for their newer scanners. This was a marketing decision, not a technical > > decision, and no technical advantage accrues from it. > > That's not true. How about plug and play? That's something that SCSI is not. > And firewire, unlike SCSI, doesn't require your devices to be powered on at > boot time. > I certainly have no direct link to Nikon's thought processes, but I suspect they had a number of reasons for dumping SCSI. For one, it is an evolutionary process. The Firewire protocol is being pushed as the new industry standard. It does remove a good deal of the difficulty inherent in SCSI, from cabling problems due to continually changing interfacing, to confusion about termination, to many different type of SCSI floating around, not fully compatible with one another, etc. SCSI remains a difficult interface to understand and implement. Now that relatively cheap firewire chips have become available manufacturers are encouraged to use them. Having two protocols in the unit might have led to some code conflicts, hardware conflicts and certainly a lot more expense in costs of parts and software engineering. However, I do think MS has more responsibility to keep their older OSs upgraded to new protocols than they do. Often they release software with promises of interfacing functioning but it is only a partial protocol. They did this with USB and WIN95 OS 2.0R. My CD states right on it "USB support" and yet it was relatively dysfunctional. In fact, the Minolta Dimage II USB scanner claims it only works on Win 98 and above. In other words, I feel that MS should make Firewire available to older OSs, at limited or no cost to the license owner. How often do we actually get what MS promises in an OS, and then we get charged more to get the product "fixed" (they call it an upgrade). I do think manufacturers tend to drop protocols like hot potatoes as soon as a new one comes along, and this is unfair, because it rarely leaves an upgrade path other than replacing one's system. It has made me not to quick to adopt new designs, and I tend to, as a result, buy last year's models once some type of track record has begun to develop. If Nikon saw a great demand for their older product while people were ignoring their newer one, they would probably reconsider. I think Epson saw an unusual demand for their "obsolete" printers which didn't require the chipped cartridge, once the chipped based machines hit the street. Interestingly some of their new printers do not have the chip circuitry. I noticed the 880 and I believe the 980 appeared without the chipped cart. Art
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
> The public has been very well brainwashed with respect to computer equipment. > Not only do people not find it odd that they are expected to junk their > computers every year or so and buy completely new hardware and software, but > they've actually been convinced that this is the way things are _supposed_ to > be. And yet, if this same situation existed with anything else--even other > high-tech goods--it might incite people to riot. It's kind of funny that I am taking the devil's advocate stand here, because I'm known on all the lists I write to as a very staunch defender of consumer rights, and I also have often complained about the environmental and social costs of toss away equipment, and the computer industry's strategy of making equipment obsolete. I have commented years ago that if the same strategy used in computers was used with phones or radios or TVs, there would be a huge backlash. Heck, until a few years ago, a 50 years old phone would work without modification on the phone system. Seventy year old AM radios still work with today's broadcasting! But coming from Europe, you should also remember that when a choice was made between a color TV broadcasting system compatible with B&W or a new one which made all previous TV's obsolete, Europe went with a new system, (PAL) and the US and Japan and a few others went with NTSC which was compatible, and PAL has been a far superior color broadcast signal. So, short time pain led to longtime gain. I also have some of the oldest equipment (still in use) of anyone I know who does professional work with their systems. In fact, before any of this came up, I wrote the text to a seminar on computer art (written for novice level) which I gave yesterday, and I'll quote part of it: "Computers have come a very long way since I first started. They are more powerful than ever, less expensive than ever, and easier to use than ever, and now is a great opportunity to do computer art without huge equipment costs. But I don't sell computers for a living, so if you already own a computer, I'm not going to tell you that you need a new one. As I said before, I was making computer graphics 15 years ago, and I doubt if any of you are using a 15 year old computer right now." However, I'm trying to be fair here, too. The computer industry is in major evolution mode right now. They are working by the seat of their pants in many areas. They sell stuff that ends up becoming dead ends, stuff they never get to work right, and stuff that is eclipsed within months. Also, all immature industries are working in a collapsed time frame due to a mixture of advancements, thousands of companies working of similar concepts, and the need to beat the competition on release of products. Back in the late 1800's and early 1900's, the exact same thing happened (on a much smaller scale) with cars, and cameras equipment. There was no agreement on placement of features (even the brake and gas 'pedal' (in some cases a lever) location changed with different models), with cameras what size film, what size lenses, etc, etc, were all in flux. Even in recent years whole camera systems have been deemed obsolete by major companies like Canon, who changed their lens mounts several times. And how many lenses fit multiple camera manufacturer's bodies? In the computer industry their is an "attempt" at standardization (I'd agree, it is often not obtained). How many different film format standards have come and gone? Visit a used 'thrift' shop and see all the cameras that no longer have film of flash bulbs made from them. You are basically demanding that an autofocus lens not only fit your Leica, but work as an AF lens or that your camera use DX coding because it is now on all 35mm film cassettes... let's see you upgrade to either of those without buying a new camera. And, BTW, while you may have the benefit of not having to change your camera to take advantage of recent film technological improvements, film manufacturers and photo labs have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to keep you in current film and processing, to remain competitive, and there are tons of old photo manufacturing and processing equipment that have been discarded. Look, I don't particularly like arguing this side of the coin, because I do think the computer industry, both software and hardware, have been remiss in dealing with upgrading in a fair manner, and I do resent the fact that equipment becomes literally worse than worthless (sometimes you have to pay to get rid of it) in so short a time span. Further, I support people whom, like myself, continue to use older equipment and "make" it work for them. Heck, I used Win 95 until a few months ago! BUT, and this is a big but (not butt, mind you! ;-)) I do not expect the most recent features or peripherals to necessarily contain legacy backward capability, and I do understand that it doesn't make sense to expect manufacturers to add considerable addit
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
> > A large part of my business deals with 3D > > animation, video editing, and pre-press graphics. > > You may call these desktop systems, I call these > > production systems. > > I call them desktop systems, within the context of this discussion. If you consider a state-of-the-art $10k Intel-based workstation a desktop, then what is your old NT box? A peashooter? > > In the context of this scanner newsgroup, I doubt > > you'll find that anyone takes a year to upgrade > > their systems, especially if their livelihood > > depends on it. > > I agree. In cases like that, you just don't upgrade at all. Some people upgrade, others will buy new systems. Personally, I don't know any photographers, scanner operators, or prepress houses that are running computers more than two years old; most are likely to be running fairly current technology. > > But they will upgrade often to take advantage > > of newer, faster hardware and software upgrades. > > Not if they need the system up and running continuously as a business necessity. Several clients are running JD Edwards as their "mission critical" application, and their upgrades are frequent and numerous, at least several times per year. The upgrades take minutes, not years. Of course, in the context of this newsgroup, this doesn't apply. I just wanted to point out that you're wrong. > > Your are right in that I haven't dealt with NASA > > and have very little to do with mainframes. Perhaps > > you can discuss those systems on a more appropriate > > newsgroup. > > They are no less appropriate to discuss than desktop systems. The original > point, after all, was that rebuilding a system from scratch just to accommodate > a new scanner isn't practical, and Nikon blew it by making its new scanners > incompatible with the old ones--a mistake it has never made with its cameras. I don't see anyone on this list, other than you, complaining about the new Nikon scanner interface. And as far as Nikon is concerned, their scanners sales are doing really well. You'd be hard pressed to convince them that they blew it, other than in not having enough manufacturing capacity to meet demand.
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Moreno writes: > If you consider a state-of-the-art $10k Intel-based > workstation a desktop, then what is your old NT box? > A peashooter? It's not price, it's purpose. > Personally, I don't know any photographers, scanner > operators, or prepress houses that are running > computers more than two years old; most are likely > to be running fairly current technology. Have you ever seen other computers besides PCs? As a general rule, no desktop system is a misson-critical production system. > Several clients are running JD Edwards as their > "mission critical" application, and their upgrades > are frequent and numerous, at least several > times per year. The upgrades take minutes, not > years. Minutes for new hardware, an OS change, and reinstallation of all applications? > Of course, in the context of this newsgroup, this > doesn't apply. I just wanted to point out > that you're wrong. What purpose is served by attempting to prove that I'm "wrong," if the attempt is not relevant to the topic under discussion? > I don't see anyone on this list, other than you, > complaining about the new Nikon scanner interface. Perhaps they are not in the same position I am in. > And as far as Nikon is concerned, their scanners > sales are doing really well. You'd be hard pressed > to convince them that they blew it, other than in not > having enough manufacturing capacity to meet > demand. I may make the attempt, just the same.
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Anthony Atkielski wrote: > > You make the same mistake that many microcomputer companies make, including the > big ones like Microsoft. Their employees have never dealt with true > mission-critical systems, in the mainframe or NASA sense (for example), Oh my god, we are dealing with rocket science! ;-) Art
